AniNate Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Yeah, that original idea for Inside Out sounds awful. I may still have my personal issues with it plot wise but its resolution is far more appealing than how that sounds. At least unlike other stalled productions, Peterson is still at Pixar and co conceived Finding Dory, so maybe there was more of a mutual understanding there than there was with Chapman or Pinkava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 From my understanding, Peterson was too stuck on the idea of Amish dinosaur farmers. He was removed because that was apparently essential to his "vision" and it was too uncomfortable for Pixar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 I know I certainly appreciated the inclusion of Sam Elliott and Anna Paquin's vocal talents and Spot's altered character design, even if it took away the more obvious explanation for his name that Peterson had in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm still reeling at the loss of NPH and Lithgow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, goldenstate5 said: From my understanding, Peterson was too stuck on the idea of Amish dinosaur farmers. He was removed because that was apparently essential to his "vision" and it was too uncomfortable for Pixar. Amish Dinosaur farmers? Wtf? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm still reeling at the loss of NPH and Lithgow. Eh, I could take or leave them. They wouldn't have fit with this less comedic vision. No disrespect whatsoever to Thomas Newman but I also thought the Dannas made a fantastic score. I'm sure it would've gotten a lot more notice if this film were a hit. Hope Pixar does a lot more with with them in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 4 hours ago, tribefan695 said: I know I certainly appreciated the inclusion of Sam Elliott and Anna Paquin's vocal talents and Spot's altered character design, even if it took away the more obvious explanation for his name that Peterson had in mind. I'd much prefer the Amish farmers to what we got. It took me far too long to get into the move because I found the accents and voices corny, irritating and the characterization weak. It picks up a lot when Spot arrives because he's a wonderful creation and I enjoyed their joint journey through magnificent artwork but there was wasted potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 You don't think you would've found Amish accents irritating? I can only imagine the ways they might've gone wrong with it. Sam Elliott is awesome. I refuse to believe anyone could've been annoyed by him, and I thought Nash and especially Ramsey held their own too. I guess the raptors fit the mold of goofy Redneck antagonists but they weren't in the movie long enough to get on my nerves and I even found them genuinely creepy at points. The same goes for the pterodactyl cult. Honestly, I can see this same longing for what could've been occurring if the western aesthetic is what had been jettisoned rather than the Amish one. ("What?! How could they ditch Sam Elliott and Jeffrey Wright?!), especially if Spot's "original" design were leaked as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I usually love Sam Elliot but yeah the family of Bubba Bronto voices annoyed me and I didn't care for the entire making your mark theme. The redneck raptors didn't bother me one way or the other, I liked the Cowboy T-Rexes and really liked the pterodactyl cult who were genuinely scary and creepy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 So you mean the Midwestern accents of the apatos. I imagine if they had stuck with the Amish theme they'd have either had the same accents or some hokey Germanic dialect to make what they're referencing obvious to kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I know TGD is one of the more subtle ways they could've taken the overall high-concept idea, but when I heard about the idea when it was announced in 2011... honestly I was picturing something closer to Monsters Inc, but without the idea of alternate dimensions. (man that film's premise is stranger than people give it credit for) Modern society populated by both humans and dinosaurs. TGD goes in a much more realistic path, where dinosaurs can not and do not posses the human ingeniuity and ability to create modern civilization. Outcasted in comparison to the mighty dinosaurs, the human species is several steps behind in evolution and except for Spot, are quiet and meek. That may pacify someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or our fellow Tribefan here more, but for many people I think it disappointed on actually giving into our suspension of belief, rather than going full throttle on the premise. Of course, on the top of my head I can't think of a story that could originate from that but TGD was nothing new in that department as well so hmm. Inside Out was announced shortly after Inception had come out which is definitely the reason why the first reactions to much of the teasers and info were a bit tepid and annoyed, as they were for some reason expecting something extremely cerebral and gritty? I don't know, they're weird to expect that from a Pixar movie in the first place. But in 2011 when I heard that one as well, I pictured a movie exploring the inner-workings of the mind/brain... that's what I was delivered four years later. And yes, initially I had no idea how they would expand that to feature length with a worthy story either, but it felt like the high-concept was delivered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) They really didn't do as much with the concept with human and Dino as they could have. When Arlo's mother said without the father they'd have a difficult time with the harvest and not starving I thought it was a ripe opportunity for the introduction of some human ingenuity via Spot and Arlo's relationship with Spot that would make the farming more efficient and that's how Arlo would make his mark. Instead Arlo comes back and everything fine even though he was gone for some time and they didn't even have his physical help. Edited January 24, 2016 by TalismanRing 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 The spoiler ship has sailed, right? When his mom told him they wouldn't have enough food for winter if they didn't get the whole harvest in, she was taking Spot stealing their food into account; which echoed what his dad said earlier and reinforced the guilt he was feeling not getting the job done (implied by the shot of the marks before he goes to put food in). Arlo getting swept down the river helped his family in a way because it both got Spot away too and stretched the food supply they had since Arlo wouldn't have been eating it. He's the "Good Dinosaur" because he finds a more mutually beneficial method to solving his family's critter problem. Instead of killing Spot he finds him a support network. (And he makes his mark at the end for that reason, not just because he came back home) You could interpret his dad's death as a sort of cosmic retribution for forcing Arlo to go on the offensive to kill him after he had already let him go, as he wasn't following his own advice about getting through his fear. I liked how the film thematically linked Spot to the fireflies near the end with Arlo gently blowing on him to revive him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I have a very difficult time believing that Spot alone would put a dent in the food supply for 5 enormous dinosaurs. He could eat his weight in food every day and it wouldn't make a difference. It would be like us complaining about a single mouse. Finding a new family for Spot doesn't do anything to get rid of any other critters. The amount of food Arlo should have helped reap should have been far more than he should also have eaten during the period and in still doesn't compensate for the loss of their biggest and strongest family member. rlo blowing on Spot to revive him was a beautiful moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 He definitely seemed to be going through it pretty quickly judging from the scene Arlo finds him inside, and the unique circumstances of his backstory probably played into his desperation to get into a "critter proof" silo and his lack of self control once he did. If it had in fact been "critter proof" until then I could understand if they had not factored theft at all into estimating their necessary food supply and why it would create such a potentially dire situation for them once it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 On 1/19/2016 at 3:00 PM, grim22 said: The 3 day multiplier is even worse when you consider that it had a 5 day opening over Thanksgiving which helps with multipliers since the holidays are just 2 weeks away. Kind of weird that the ticket buying public just stayed away en masse. Reviews, while not great, were not negative either and the trailers looked fine. Looking down the list of all time Thanksgiving openers, the 3-day accounted for 32.6% of the total (will fall a bit from there, but not massively. At best it's got another $3m or so, assuming there's a healthy cheap theater expansion.) And the 5-day is 46.2%. To find an opener with worse legs, you've got to go down to Unbreakable (31.9%, 48.4%), The Muppets (33%, 46.8%), Spy Game (34.8%, 49%), and End of Days (30.7%, 47.1%). I'd kinda forgotten how frontloaded The Muppets was, despite the good response. And at least that had the nostalgia factor to explain why people showed up at the start and not later on. For a family film, TGD's legs have been pretty terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 It is somewhat comforting to know there was a kids movie with worse legs (and better reviews) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Overload of other family films (and those awful Chipmunks) was what really killed Muppets. Still surprised a sequel got greenlit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Treasure Planet also had really lousy legs. 31.7 3-day and 44.7 5-day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shayhiri Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh, stop kicking the dead dinosaur... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
